Bannum, Inc.

B-270640 Mar 27, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Have access to public transportation. The solicitation required that the offeror's proposed facility have. The agency excluded Bannum primarily on its determination that Bannum's proposed facility was unacceptable and could not be appropriately renovated within the required 60 days after award. We review the record to determine whether the agency's judgments were reasonable and in accordance with the listed evaluation criteria and whether there were any violations of procurement statutes or regulation. We find that the agency's technical evaluation in this case was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. That the agency's determination to eliminate the protester's proposal from further consideration was unobjectionable. View Decision Matter of: Bannum, Inc. File: B-270640 Date: March 27, 1996 Contracting agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range as technically unacceptable under solicitation, which gave primary weight to technical factors, including facility, where, in addition to the numerous deficiencies in the protester's technical proposal, the facility proposed by the protester would require major renovations to meet the solicitation requirements and these renovations could not be completed within the required 60-day commencement time frame. Attorneys DECISION Bannum, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-278-SC, issued by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Department of Justice, for residential comprehensive sanction center services for male and female federal offenders in the New Orleans, Louisiana area. Bannum asserts that BOP improperly evaluated and eliminated its proposal from the competitive range without conducting discussions with the protester, and that BOP has de facto debarred Bannum from competing for government contracts. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued May 22, 1995, requested offers on a firm, fixed-price basis for estimated requirements, for a base year with three 1-year options. The statement of work (SOW) required offerors to furnish the necessary facilities, equipment, and personnel to provide for the safekeeping and program needs of federal offenders residing at a New Orleans, Louisiana, facility to be furnished by the contractor, known as a community corrections center, or halfway house. The RFP required that the facility be in a suitable area, have access to public transportation, be equipped to handle the handicapped, and meet life/safety standards as provided by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Among other things, the solicitation required that the offeror's proposed facility have, at a minimum, "one operable toilet for every ten residents, one shower (or bathing area) for every eight residents, and one wash basin for every six residents." The RFP also required the contractor to "deter and detect introduction or use of alcohol in the facility" and to administer guidelines to prevent substance abuse and to support existing abusers in their recovery within the facility. The solicitation required that the offeror's facility be fully operational and ready for use within 60 days after the date of contract award. Section M.5 of the RFP listed the following evaluation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical (including reports/policy/procedures, facility, and overall programs approach), cost, and management (including personnel/staffing and experience/structure). The RFP indicated that the technical evaluation would focus on the proposed facility's suitability, age, condition, location, and compliance with NFPA life/safety standards; documentation and procedures; and how well the offeror's technical proposal described the offeror's operational procedures in achieving the SOW requirements. Under the management factor, the RFP advised that proposals would be evaluated on such things as the capability of the offeror's management; qualifications and past experience; standards, job descriptions and position responsibilities; and employment policies and practices, and personnel and conduct standards. Three offerors, including Bannum, submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. After evaluating the proposals, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) made a competitive range determination and eliminated two of the proposals--including Bannum's--from further consideration. The agency excluded Bannum primarily on its determination that Bannum's proposed facility was unacceptable and could not be appropriately renovated within the required 60 days after award. The contracting officer notified Bannum of its proposal's elimination from the competitive range and this protest followed. Bannum protests that BOP did not adhere to the RFP's evaluation scheme and improperly excluded its proposal from the competitive range.